General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Fed Up Bernie Sanders Obliterates The Koch Fueled Supreme Court Majority
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/02/fed-bernie-sanders-obliterates-koch-fueled-supreme-court-majority.htmlA Fed Up Bernie Sanders Obliterates The Koch Fueled Supreme Court Majority
By: Jason Easley
Wednesday, April, 2nd, 2014, 12:03 pm
After the Supreme Court handed down a decision that wiped out all individual campaign donation limits today, a fed up Bernie Sanders took aim at the 5 Koch conservatives in the courts majority.
In a 5-4 ruling, the conservative majority on the Supreme wiped out all legal limits on individual campaign donations. This decision opens the door for wealthy individuals to give as much money as they want to political campaigns, and it is clear that the nations top champion for getting the money out of our politics has had enough.
In a statement Sen. Sanders said, Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in? To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with freedom of speech is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.
Over the past two election cycles Republicans have not been able to buy elections at the federal level, so their answer is to pollute the electoral process with even more money.
snip//
Sen. Sanders is fed up, and the American people should be too. Now is the time to join the fight, and support the Vermont senators efforts to overturn Citizens United. In the meantime, there is one important thing that every concerned citizen can do.
Get out and vote. The 2012 election demonstrated that the Koch brothers can buy lots of ads, but they still cant buy your vote.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Time to build a guillotine.
I am more pissed off at our fellow poor to middle class who applaud this bullshit. What the fuck is in it for WE THE PEOPLE?
There are remedies though. THE most famous precedent for rebelling against true oppression.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)many, many other elected reps and scream, too. And yes, we've got to set records for voting in 2014. Meanwhile, money is NOT speech!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)Money doesn't talk it swears.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)of weight does him being fed up carry?
babylonsister
(171,094 posts)check out the search function on DU. You are woefully uninformed.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)fucking day since Watergate. I have met every living president except Jimmy Carter, as well as the likes of Ann Richards and I had dinner with Bill and Hillary before most anyone outside of Arkansas ever heard of them. I have learned from DU a lot longer than I have been a member. I have watched nearly all of Bernie Sanders career. I admire Bernie Sanders and always did. He is not a Democrat, by the way.
Bernie Sanders being fed up is going to be about as effective in getting anything done with regard to SCOTUS' decision on McCutcheon as it was for John Conyers "strongly-worder letters" to all manner of shrubco henchmen, including darth cheney and antonio gonzalez. Yes, he called for GOTV. No duh.
I watch the hearings. I watch the Congress. I can name nearly every member of the Senate and many Reps and where they're from nearly as easy as I can name the drivers in Nascar and their sponsors.
Haha, you thinking you know how informed I am. And, yet, I would be willing to concede that maybe you have an experience or two over me. But don't go thinking you can judge my experience by one fecetious comment given in the same spirit that criticisms of Conyers' SWLs were during the bush criminal term and think you can declare me clueless or ignorant. I've been around the block a time or two, sister.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)When he has always been a strong, consistent voice on the subject?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)being "fed up". My reaction is "What, finally?" My point, though i wasn't necessarily really meaning to be anything but facetious, is basically that being "fed up" doesn't do jack shit. You remember the Conyers reference, no?
I want to see a little less hysterical descriptions of Sanders being "fed up" and a lot more action. Didn't he say something about running for president? If he doesn't run as a Democrat, will you expect me to support him?
He's a very honorable and good man. I know he fights hard. But we need him and liberal Democrats to fight harder, especially if one has become "fed up".
Are you fed up, Bernie Sanders? Will you frustration be as fruitful as Conyers' SWLs or will you act on it in a big, BIG way? Whatcha got, Mr. Sanders? I hope I haven't begun to see it yet.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)But we'll see.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)babylonsister
(171,094 posts)No one said how effective Bernie would be, but a majority of us respect his opinion. To disparage that makes you sound ignorant. Sorry if you took that the wrong way or sounded clueless.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)opinions. But opinions are thoughts, not actions.
Will he run for president? Will he run as a Democrat? If not, will he be a spoiler for the Dem candidate?
Where does he go from "fed up", b-sister?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)How could you not know that?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)babylonsister
(171,094 posts)I do love him and his speaking sanity always.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Digit
(6,163 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)spanone
(135,884 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Because the SCOTUS can only consistently rule one way on the matter of unlimited individual contributions. The previous ruling would have to be overturned to stop unlimited individual contributions.
Cha
(297,721 posts)it really doesn't even take a genius.
mahalo babylonsistah~